Westminstenders: What The Hell Happens Next?!

[RedToothBrush]

John Bercow has just spent over at an hour dealing with a Points of Order, in which he has argued that he is defending the soverignty of the House of Commons and that is his duty, not to simply to be a cheerleader for the executive.

Taking back control seems to have rather upset ERG Brexiteers.

As Jess Phillips astutely pointed out:
"People only care about procedures, and protecting and conserving the procedures, when they don't like the outcome of the thing that is about to happen and never when it is going in their favour."

And given what we have seen the Executive do over the last few months in terms of trying to use procedure for its own political gain, this is quite a fair point.

There are however certain constitutional questions this is all raising. And we have a very real constitutional crisis here.

Bercow has ruled that he CAN allow an amendment (because the previous vote had prevented only a motion and a debate) put forward by Grieve to go to a vote.

This amendment would - if it is passed by the house - require May to report to the house within 3 days if the WA fails to pass next week.

This would be a significant victory, if it passed because at present the position is where May can delay reporting back to the house until it start to get to the point where politically the opposition can't influence things, and a 'meaningful vote' will in practice be more like a gun to the head by the Executive, rather than the House of Commons acting in a sovereign manner and being free to make its own decisions rather than be forced into a corner by Parliamentary Procedure and the politicking of Parliamentary Procedure to undermine the independence of the HoC.

Allowing more time for the opposition to hold the government to account, does not necessarily change anything. It just means the executive can not just run down the clock in the way it perhaps has been intending.

The HoC could of course, vote against the amendment.

The WA is to come to the HoC next week.

And we have no idea what the hell is going to happen next.

PMK & wondering if a GE will be triggered to run down the clock after the WA is rejected next week (assuming the vote even goes ahead).

Laura Kuenssberg @bbclaurak
This is what happened when Swire amendment emerged before Christmas (spoiler, not much)

www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-46472088?__twitter_impression=true
Brexit: Can backstop 'fiddling' win over Tory MPs?

So from what Kuenssberg says, it's bollocks in terms of who supports it. Which makes it debatable as to whether Parliament would approve it anyway.

So narrative management and politicking.

"What the rubbery fuck is going to happen now?"

^ Mrs8 has done a good job of summarising my thoughts post Swire amendment.

I mean, WTF?

given the time of year, I wonder if this parliamentary pantomime is Mays attempt to cow the EU to renegotiate ...

"Look !" she will go "Look how cross the UK parliament is ... you have to do something !!!!!!"

If that's the case, a revision downwards of intelligence might be needed.

I'm vaguely reminded of early days on the internet when some cerebrally challenged Americans refused to believe that the "United Kingdom" wasn't a state. Trolling them, whilst fun, did lose it's edge quite quickly.

How many times does TM need to be defeated by the HoC on Brexit before she a) resigns or b) gives up on her WA??

The Swire amendment places duties on Parliament and on the government, to the (very limited) extent that they are meaningful at all. It cannot compel the EU to do anything. Not sure how this is "breaking the WA?"

"No deal" happens, as I understand it, if there is no deal approved by Parliament before 29th March. So the surest way to prevent "No Deal" is to support "Deal!"

{LeClerc, the disappointing thing will be the lack of anecdotes about David Davis. Seeing as the negotiating team never saw him.}
There is plenty of other material, he can just be mentioned in the appendix as 'supporting cast'. He can be on the same page as the one who didn't know about the proximity of Calais.
I suppose McCavity might feature with his discussions of allotments.

Clearly I've lost the plot now. I don't understand how the Swire amendment would work though?

Hasn't it given rights to our Parliament to make decisions that don't exist under the WA?

I thought the backstop in the WA was "if you don't have your shit sorted out by 2020 then N.Ireland will remain in the CU while the rest of the UK drops out"

And the Swire agreement now says the UK Parliament can vote to extend the transition period/veto backstop or limit it to 12 months.

But...but...but they can't?

Please can someone explain

I think the Swire amendement is symbolic. It's like Charles II digging up Cromwell to execute him. Or courts pardoning Timothy Evans.

Well...I mean they can vote on it but surely it would mean diddly squat?

Oh..I see...a symbolic vote.

That should persuade them all then

Just jumping in before a meeting to say

What on earth!

I don't understand how the Swire amendment would work though

It can't.

That's the point!

The HoC can vote that the EU must give us 100 billion quid per year.
They have absolutely no power to make the EU do this.

From SKY news. £75 Million spent on 'consultancy'.
{"There's definitely been an increase in secrecy more generally across the civil service as a result of Brexit, just because of how politically difficult it's been for many reasons.

"There are the divisions inside the country, the government, parliament, the cabinet and that's kind of fed into this level of secrecy."

Sky News has contacted all the companies involved. So far six have replied - all saying they could not comment on matters involving clients.

These are the details of the nine contracts, each for consultancy support:

:: The Boston Consulting Group - £10m

:: Bain & Company Inc. United Kingdom - £10m

:: McKinsey and Company, Inc. United Kingdom - £5m

:: Accenture (UK) Limited - £5m

:: Deloitte LLP - £10m

:: Ernst & Young LLP - £10m

:: Mott Macdonald Limited - £5m

:: PA Consulting Services Limited - £10m

:: Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP - £10m}

Tatiana negotiating a softer Brexit during the WA or a Rejoin is looking more likely atm than the chances of Revoke.

I know you want to Remain at all costs
but don't call something a unicorn just because you don't like it

.

Placemarking, thank you RTB!

Feels like we are being dragged into a Mexican standoff between no deal and revoke ...

The EU have said that the WA itself - including the backstop - cannot be changed
BUT
that the PD can be changed to say "frictionless trade" as an aim provided the UK drops its red lines,
i.e. agrees to SM and hence FOM, ECJ etc

That would give very different consequences to the WA.
So clearly the EU would still prefer an SM+CU deal in transition.

Junckers has spoken of a Fast Track rejoin in transition
and from remarks in Germany, that still seems to be a strong hope here

• on the EU side, they apparently regard Revoke as v unlikely now

PMK. Page 7 already?

.

.